3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 271934, November 27, 2024 ]
HEIRS OF AQUILINO RAMOS, REPRESENTED BY WILBUR M.
RAMOS, MARILOU G. ILAGAN, LYDIA GALARRITA, BENJAMIN
GALARRITA, THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF ALUBIJID,
MISAMIS ORIENTAL, AND PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF MISAMIS
ORIENTAL, PETITIONERS, VS. PROSALITA BAGARES AND
DANTON BAGARES, REPRESENTED BY PROSERFINA
GALARRITA, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 272834 [FORMERLY UDK No. 18020]]
MARILOU G. ILAGAN, BENJAMIN GALARRITA, AND ELYER
GALARRITA, PETITIONERS, VS. PROSALITA GALARRITA
BAGARES AND DANTON BAGARES, REPRESENTED BY
PROSERFINA GALARRITA,* RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
INTING, J.:

Before the Court are consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the
Decision[2] dated May 31, 2023, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 06149-
MIN filed by the following: (1) the Heirs of Aquilino Ramos, represented by Wilbur M.
Ramos (Wilbur), Marilou G. Ilagan (Marilou), Lydia Galarrita (Lydia), and Benjamin
Galarrita (Benjamin); and (2) Marilou, Benjamin, and Elyer Galarrita (Elyer) (collectively,
petitioners).

The CA affirmed the Decision[3] dated March 19, 2019, of Branch 44, Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Initao, Misamis Oriental in Civil Case No. 2004-487 which granted the
complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Tampered Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land filed
by Prosalita Galarrita Bagares (Prosalita) and Danton Bagares (Danton), represented by
Proserfina Galarrita (Proserfina) (collectively, respondents).

The Antecedents

Respondents alleged that on July 24, 1995, they purchased a 3,000-square meter parcel of
land owned by the late Basilia Galarrita-Naguita (Basilia), situated in Lanao, Alubijid,
Misamis Oriental, and identified as Lot No. 12020. Said property is a portion of the 7,687-
square meter landholdings of Basilia. Basilia also sold a portion of Lot No. 12020,
consisting of 3,655 square meter to the Local Government of Alubijid, Misamis Oriental
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 1/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

and the remaining portion, consisting of 1,032 square meter to Prosalita.[4]

Subsequently, Aquilino Ramos (Aquilino) filed before the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) a free patent over Lot No. 12020 consisting of 7,687 square
meter. Respondents opposed the application and alleged that Aquilino deliberately
tampered the Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land he submitted to the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) by changing Lot No. 12019 to Lot
No. 12020. PENRO denied the free patent filed by Aquilino.[5]

Meanwhile, Marilou, Benjamin, Elyer, and Lydia were buyers of a portion of Lot No.
12020 from Aquilino. The case became the subject of barangay conciliation, but the
parties failed to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute.[6] They averred that the
portion of land claimed by respondents is not the same portion they owned and possessed
since 1978.[7]

On June 14, 2004, petitioners argued that their predecessor-in-interest did not tamper with
the Deed. Further, they maintained that after Aquilino bought the subject property, he and
the rest of them lived in the subject property until he sold some portions of it.[8]

The Ruling of the RTC

In the Decision[9] dated March 19, 2019, the RTC ruled in favor of respondents. The RTC
found that respondents, or the plaintiffs therein, presented convincing proof that the Deed
of Sale of Unregistered Land presented by Aquilino was a tampered document. The
dispositive portion of the RTC's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favour of

the plaintiffs and against defendants:

1. The tampered Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land is declared

VOID;

2. The tax declaration and records of Lot No. 12020 in the name of
Aquilino Ramos, his heirs as well as those that may already been
placed in the name of the rest of the private defendants in the Office
of the Municipal Assessor of Alubijid, Misamis Oriental, as well as
the Provincial Assessor of Misamis Oriental which have been made
by or through the use by defendant Ramos or such that may have
proceeded from the tampered Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land by
Aquilino Ramos are declared VOID;

3. The Municipal Assessor of Alubijid, Misamis Oriental as well as

the Provincial Assessor of the Province of Misamis Oriental are
ordered to. CANCEL all tax declarations and other records on file
in said office respecting Lot No. 12020 in the name of Aquilino
Ramos, his heirs and his buyers, the private defendants in this case;

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 2/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

4. The defendants are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the

plaintiffs P20,000.00 as and for attorney's fees.

No pronouncement as to the cost of this suit.

SO ORDERED.[10]

Aggrieved, petitioners and Lydia appealed to the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

In the Decision[11] dated May 31, 2023, the CA denied petitioners' appeal. It ruled as
follows: first, the findings of the DENR that Aquilino submitted a tampered document in
relation to his free patent application for Lot No. 12020 carries great weight and should be
accorded respect especially when Aquilino failed to rebut such findings; and second,
Aquilino admitted during the barangay conciliation proceedings that he tampered with the
deed of sale attached in his free patent application to Lot No. 12020, which qualifies as
judicial admission. Thus, the CA concluded that the Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land in
question is void; consequently, it did not transfer ownership of the land to herein
petitioners because Aquilino has no title or interest in the subject property to begin with.
[12]

The CA also rejected petitioners' assertion that they acquired ownership of the subject
property by prescription. It explained that petitioners' adverse possession of the land for 26
years fell short of the requirements of the requirements for extraordinary acquisitive
prescription to set in.[13] Thus, the CA denied the appeal of petitioners, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated March 19, 2019 of
the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 44, Initao, Misarnis
Oriental, in Civil Case No. 2044-487 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.[14]

Thus, the present petitions.

The Petitions

In G.R. No. 271934, the Heirs of Aquilino, represented by Wilbur, Marilou, Lydia, and
Benjamin, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
arguing as follows:

First, the CA erred in affirming the Decision of the RTC nullifying the Deed of Sale given
that in the Deed of Sale, the object of the sale could be properly identified regardless of
whether the lot number is amended or altered.[15] Moreover, there were no allegations of
forgery in the execution of the said deed. Thus, assuming arguendo that there is an error in
the designation of the lot number in the Deed of Sale, any ambiguity thereof has been
resolved by the execution of the Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale in 1989.[16]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 3/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Second, they were able to submit sketch plans or survey plans showing that the subject
property, which has been in their possession, is the same lot as described in the Deed of
Sale. In contrast, no sketch plan or survey was presented by respondents.[17]

Lastly, prescription had already set in in their favor.[18]

Meanwhile, in G.R. No. 272834, Marilou, Benjamin, and Elyer argue that the CA
committed a reversible error when it ruled that: (1) they are not buyers in good faith, in
accordance with Articles 526 to 529 of the Civil Code of the Philippines; and (2) their
construction of a house in the subject property is not good faith.[19]

The Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision.

The Ruling of the Court

It is settled that a Rule 45 petition should only raise questions of law as the Court is not a
trier of fact.[20] "A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth
or falsity of the alleged facts."[21]

In the case, the following issues raised are factual matters that are beyond the scope of an
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court: (1) whether the deed of sale of
Lot No. 12020 is null and void for having been tampered with; (2) whether prescription
has already set in in favor of petitioners; and (3) whether petitioners are buyers in good
faith.

In any case, even if the consolidated petitions are given due course, they must still fail for
petitioners' failure to prove that the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC in favor of
respondents. As aptly observed by the CA:

In the present case, the findings of the DENR that Aquilino Ramos deliberately
tampered his free patent application for Lot No. 12020 carries great weight and
should be accorded respect, more so, when Aquilino Ramos failed to rebut
such findings. There being no controversion, the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duties applies favorably to the DENR. This means
that the DENR's findings has become conclusive...

Aside from the findings of the DENR, the Court notes that Aquilino Ramos
admitted during the barangay proceedings that he tampered [with] the deed of
sale attached in his free patent application to Lot No. 12020. The admission by
Aquilino Ramos qualifies as a judicial admission. Since such statement is
judicial admission, it does not require proof according to Section 4, Rule 129
of the Rules of Court, which provides:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 4/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or written,

made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.

Since there is judicial admission that the deed of sale was tampered [with],
then there is no question that the Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land selling Lot
12020 is void. Consequently, the Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land selling Lot
12020 did not transfer ownership of the land to appellants, as Aquilino Ramos
had no title or interest to transfer.[22] (Citations omitted)

Indeed, "the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be
disturbed on appeal."[23] "The rule finds an even more stringent application where the
findings are sustained by the CA."[24]

Here, the Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by
the CA, that the subject Deed of Sale is void for having been tampered with by Aquilino
Ramos.

Moreover, there is no merit in the argument of the Heirs of Aquilino Ramos in G.R. No.
271934 that they acquired ownership of the subject property by prescription.

"Prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership through the lapse of time and under certain
conditions."[25] It may either be ordinary or extraordinary.[26] "Ordinary acquisitive
prescription requires possession of things in good faith and with just title for a period of
ten years, while extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires uninterrupted adverse
possession of thirty years, without need of title or of good faith."[27] As correctly observed
by the CA:

In the case at bar, ordinary acquisitive prescription is unavailing as it demands

that the possession be "in good faith and with just title," and there is no
evidence on record to prove [the Heirs of Aquilino Ramos'] "good faith."

Likewise, [the Heirs of Aquilino Ramos'] adverse possession of the land fell
short of the requirements for extraordinary acquisitive prescription to set in.
The records show that the subject land is an unregistered land. When the [Heirs
of Aquilino Ramos] filed the instant case on April 15, 2004, [they] were in
possession of the land for only 26 years counted from the time of the alleged
start of their possession in 1978. Obviously, it fell short of the required 30
years of uninterrupted adverse possession without just title and good faith.[28]
(Citations omitted)

The Court likewise rejects the contention of Marilou, Benjamin, and Elyer in G.R. No.
272834 that they are buyers in good faith because they had no notice that the seller did not
have the capacity to sell the subject property. The records show that Marilou, Benjamin,
Elyer, and Lydia bought the property when it was still an unregistered land. Jurisprudence
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 5/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

dictates that "[t]he defense of having purchased the property in good faith may be availed
of only where registered land is involved and the buyer had relied in good faith on the
clear title of the registered owner."[29]

Finally, the Court notes the following infirmities in the petition which further warrant the
consolidated petitions' denial:

In G.R. No. 271934, the Petition lacks: (a) a statement of material date of receipt of the
assailed CA Decision; and (b) the proof of service thereof to the adverse parties and the
CA.

In G.R. No. 272834, the timeliness of the motion for extension to file a petition for review
on certiorari could not be determined due to an illegible postal mark. The Petition also
lacks: (a) the proof of service thereof to the adverse parties and the CA; (b) a verified
declaration of electronic submission of the filed soft copy of the petition as required under
the Rules on E-Filing (A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC and the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No.
11-9-4-SC); and (c) a statement of material date of filing of the motion for reconsideration
of the assailed CA Decision.

Moreover, the jurat of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping lacks
affiant's current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual in violation of Rule II, Sections 2, 6, and 12 of
the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February
19, 2008. The verification and certification of non-forum shopping, too, was signed by
Benjamin without proof of authority to sign for and on behalf of Marilou and Elyer.

All told, the Court resolves to deny the instant petitions for: first, raising factual issues;
second, being procedurally defective; and third, failure of petitioners to show that the CA
committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary
appellate jurisdiction.

However, the Court finds it proper to delete the award of attorney's fees, in line with
prevailing jurisprudence.

Attorney's fees are awarded by the court only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of
the Civil Code.[30] Thus, it is necessary for the courts to make findings of fact and law that
would justify its award. When it is awarded, "the basis for the grant must be clearly
expressed in the decision of the court."[31] In PNCC. v. APAC Marketing Corp.,[32] the
Court explained:

We have consistently held that an award of attorney's fees under Article 2208
demands factual, legal, and equitable justification to avoid speculation and
conjecture surrounding the grant thereof. Due to the special nature of the award
of attorney's fees, a rigid standard is imposed on the courts before these fees
could be granted. Hence, it is imperative that they clearly and distinctly set
forth in their decisions the basis of the award thereof. It is not enough that they
merely state the amount of the grant in the dispositive portion of their
decisions. It bears reiteration that the award of attorney's fees is an exception
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 6/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

rather than the general rule; thus, there must be compelling legal reason to
bring the case within the exceptions provided under Article 2208 of the Civil
Code to justify the award.[33] (Citations omitted)

In the case, both the RTC and the CA Decisions failed to cite any factual, legal, and/or
equitable justification for the award of attorney's fees in favor of respondents.[34] The RTC
merely stated the amount of attorney's fees in the dispositive portion of its Decision.
Likewise, the CA merely affirmed the RTC ruling without an explanation as to the legality
of the award. Thus, the attorney's fees awarded was improper and must be deleted.

ACCORDINGLY, the consolidated petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated May 31,
2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 06149-MIN is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, in that the award of attorney's fees is DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.

Caguioa (Chairperson), J., see concurring opinion.
Singh,** J., on official business.

*Erroneously referred to as "Proserfina Galarrita Bagares." See rollo, G.R. No. 272834, p.
30.

** On official business.

[1] Rollo, G.R. No. 271934, pp. 17-29; rollo, G.R. No. 272834, pp. 10-18.

[2] Rollo, G.R. No. 271934, pp. 37-46. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and
concurred in by Associate Justices Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales and Richard D. Mordeno
of the Special Twenty-First Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.

[3] Id. at 47-58. Penned by Presiding Judge Marissa P. Estabaya.

[4] Id. at 38.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 39.

[9] Id. at 47-58.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 7/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[10] Id. at 57-58.

[11] Id. at 37-46.

[12] Id. at 42-43.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 45-46.

[15] Id. at 21.

[16] Id. at 22-23.

[17] Id. at 24.

[18] Id. at 25-26.

[19] Rollo, G.R. No. 272834, pp. 14-15.

[20] Trillanes IV v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 241494, 256660, & 256078, April 3, 2024.

[21] Enriquez v. Heirs of Enriquez, G.R. No. 215035, May 27, 2024.

[22] Rollo, G.R. No. 271934, pp. 42-43.

[23] People v. PO1 Lumikid, 875 Phil. 467, 480 (2020).

[24] Cafranca v. People, G.R. Nos. 244071 & 244208, May 15, 2024.

[25]Dagangan v. Lapara Vda. De Tanquion, G.R. No. 233076, March 22, 2023
[Notice], citing Virtucio v. Alegarbes, 693 Phil. 567 (2012).

[26] Dagangan v. Lapara Vda. De Tanquion, id.

[27] Id.

[28] Rollo, G.R. No. 271934, p. 45.

[29] Daclag v. Macahilig, 582 Phil. 138, 157 (2008).

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 8/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[30]Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation,
other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered.

In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

[31] PNCC v. APAC Marketing Corp., 710 Phil. 389, 396 (2013).

[32] Id.

[33] Id. at 396.

[34] Id.

CONCURRING OPINION

CAGUIOA, J.:

The consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari[1] ( consolidated Petitions) filed by

the Heirs of Aquilino Ramos (Heirs of Aquilino), represented by Wilbur M. Ramos
(Wilbur), Marilou G. Ilagan (Marilou), Lydia Galarrita (Lydia), and Benjamin Galarrita
(Benjamin), and that filed by Marilou, Benjamin, and Elyer Galarrita (Elyer) (collectively,
petitioners), assail the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 31, 2023 in
CA­G.R. CV No. 06149-MIN. The CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) grant[3]
of the complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Tampered Deed of Sale of Unregistered
Land filed by Prosalita Galarrita Bagares (Prosalita) and Danton Bagares (Danton),
represented by Proserfina Galarrita Bagares (Proserfina) (collective.ly, respondents), on
the ground that respondents were able to present convincing proof that the Deed of Sale of
Unregistered Land (Deed of Sale) presented by Aquilino Ramos (Aquilino) was a
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 9/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

tampered document.

In G.R. No. 271934, the Heirs of Aquilino argued that: (1) the CA erred in affirming the
RTC's Decision nullifying the Deed of Sale considering that the object of the sale therein
could be properly identified regardless of whether the lot number was altered, and that
there were no allegations of forgery in the execution of said Deed of Sale; (2) they were
able to submit sketch plans or survey plans showing that the subject property in this case,
which have been in their possession, is the same lot as described in the Deed of Sale; and
(3) prescription had already set in in their favor.

On the other hand, in G.R. No. 272834 Marilou, Benjamin, and Elyer argued that the CA
committed a reversible error when it ruled that they are not buyers in good faith, in
accordance with Articles 526 to 529 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

The ponencia denies the consolidated Petitions and affirms the CA's Decision with
modification that the award of attorney's fees is deleted.

I agree with the ponencia.

It is worth highlighting that the Heirs of Aquilino's adverse possession of the subject
property for 26 years fell short of the requirements for extraordinary acquisitive
prescription to set in. In this regard, Marilou, Benjamin, Elyer, and Lydia's defense of
good faith is unavailing given the factual circumstances.

Brief review of the facts

The late Basilia Galarrita-Naguita owned a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 12020
(subject property) situated in Lanao, Alubijid, Misamis Oriental. In 1995, respondents
alleged that they purchased a 3000-square­meter portion thereof. Subsequently, Aquilino
filed a free patent application over the entire subject property before the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Respondents opposed this, alleging that
Aquilino deliberately tampered the Deed of Sale he submitted to the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) by changing the Lot Number
thereon. The PENRO denied such application.

Meanwhile, Marilou, Benjamin, Elyer, and Lydia were buyers of a portion of the subject
property from Aquilino. Respondents turned to the barangay for conciliation, which
proved futile and eventually led to respondents' complaint. In their Joint Answer, Marilou,
Benjamin, Elyer, and Lydia averred that the portion of land claimed by respondents is not
the same as the portion they owned and possessed since 1978. For their part, in their
Answer with Counterclaim the Heirs of Aquilino argued that their predecessor-in-interest
did not tamper with the Deed of Sale. They maintained that after Aquilino bought the
subject property, he and the rest of them lived thereon until he sold some portions.

In its Decision, the RTC ruled in favor of respondents, or plaintiffs therein, finding that
they were able to present convincing proof that the Deed of Sale was tampered with. The
CA denied petitioners' appeal, holding that the findings of the DENR that Aquilino
submitted a tampered document in relation to his free patent application carries great
weight and should be accorded respect, bolstered by the fact that he failed to rebut such
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 10/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

findings. Further, Aquilino himself admitted during barangay conciliation proceedings that
he tampered with the Deed of Sale attached to his free patent application. On this score,
the Deed of Sale is void and did not transfer ownership of the subject property to
petitioners considering that Aquilino had no title or interest in the subject property to begin
with.

The CA likewise rejected the Heirs of Aquilino's assertion that they acquired ownership of
the subject property by prescription. Their adverse possession thereof for 26 years fell
short of the requirements for extraordinary acquisitive prescription to set in.

I concur with the disposition of the case. As aptly discussed by the ponencia, the issues
raised in this case are factual matters that are beyond the scope of an appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, i.e., whether the Deed of Sale is null and void for
having been tampered with; whether prescription has set in in favor of the Heirs of
Aquilino; and whether Marilou, Benjarnin, and Elyer are buyers in good faith.

On the Matter of Acquisitive Prescription

I take this opportunity to highlight the principles behind acquisitive prescription of

unregistered lands. Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownership
and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid
down by law.[4] Prescription may be further classified into ordinary or extraordinary
acquisitive prescription.

In the former case, there must be possession in good faith and just title. Such possession
need only be for 10 years for acquisitive prescription to set in.[5] A possessor's good faith
consists of their reasonable belief that the person from whom they receive a thing was the
owner thereof and could thus transmit their ownership over it.[6] Moreover, there is just
title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the
modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the
grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.[7]

On the other hand, should one's possession over property be without good faith and just
title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character.[8] Thus, for purposes
of extraordinary prescription, only possession in the "concept of an owner, public,
peaceful, and uninterrupted" is required and there is no need to prove good faith and just
title.[9] Further, extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires uninterrupted adverse
possession for 30 years.[10]

Notably, in either case of ordinary acquisitive prescription, not only should the possessor
have the capacity to acquire property through prescription, but their possession must also
be adverse, or in the concept of an owner.[11] Such possession must be public, peaceful
and uninterrupted. Possession must be under a claim of ownership and not by mere
tolerance. Along the same vein, mere possession with a juridical title, such as by a
usufructuary, a trustee, a lessee, an agent or a pledgee, will generally not ripen into
ownership by acquisitive prescription.[12] Further; such property must be capable of
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 11/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

acquisition by prescription, i.e., alienable. Lastly, the period set by law must be complied
with.

Again, it bears stressing that for possession to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive
right, it must be en concepto de dueno. In common law terms, possession should be
adverse. Otherwise, possess my acts, no matter how long, do not start the running of the
period of prescription.[13] Thus, the factual circumstances for each case should be
examined to ascertain the point in time from which the period of acquisitive prescription
should be reckoned. Moreover, the evidence relative to the possession upon which the
alleged prescription is based must be clear, complete, and conclusive in order to establish
prescription.[14]

With the foregoing in mind, the ponencia correctly relied on jurisprudence affirming the
rule on extraordinary acquisitive prescription. Here, the Heirs of Aquilino filed the instant
case on April 15, 2004 when they were in possession of the subject property for only 26
years, counted from the time of the alleged start of their possession in 1978. Clearly, the
Heirs of Aquilino's claim of acquisitive prescription is misplaced and must fail.

As an aside, I likewise take this opportunity to briefly point out that the shortened 20-year
prescriptive period provided by Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,[15] as
amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 11573,[16] finds specific application only in
cases of judicial confirmation of title under Presidential Decree No. 1529. Moreover, said
period applies not to private lands, but to those deemed alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain not covered by existing certificates of title or patents under a bona fide
claim of ownership, the latter being subject to the evidentiary requirements provided by
Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.[17]

Unregistered Land vis-à-vis

Buyers in Good Faith

The ponencia correctly rejected the contention of Marilou, Benjamin, and Elyer that they
are buyers in good faith since they had no notice that Aquilino had no capacity to sell the
subject property. It bears stressing that one who purchases unregistered land does so at
their own peril. Claims of having bought land in good faith, i.e., without notice that some
other person has a right to or interest in the property, would not protect a buyer if it turns
out that the seller does not actually own the property.[18]

Based on these premises, I vote to DENY the consolidated Petitions for Review on
Certiorari.

[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 271934), pp. 17-31; rollo (G.R. No. 272834), pp. 10-18.

[2]Rollo (G.R. No. 271934), pp. 37-46; rollo (G.R. No. 272834), pp. 80-89. Penned by
Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Evalyn M.
Arellano-Morales and Richard D. Mordeno of the Special Twenty-First Division, Court of

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 12/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.

[3]Rollo(G.R. No. 271934), pp 47-58; rollo (G.R. No. 272834), pp. 56-67. The Decision
dated March 19, 2019 in Civil Case No. 2004-487 was rendered by Presiding Judge
Marissa P. Estabaya of Branch 44, Regional Trial Court of Initao, Misamis Oriental.

[4] Oño v. Lim, 628 Phil. 418, 427 (2010) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

[5] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, art. 1134.

[6] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, art. 1127.

[7] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, art. 1129.

[8]
Republic of the Philippines v. Sadca, 916 Phil. 651, 664 (2021) [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division], citing Marcelo v. Court of Appeals, 365 Phil. 354, 362 (1999) [Per J. Vitug,
Third Division].

[9] Republic of the Philippines v. Sadca, id.

[10] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, art. 1137.

[11] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, art. 1118.

[12] Marcelo v. Court of Appeals, supra note 8.

[13] Id.; See also Heirs of Roger Jarque v. Jarque, 843 Phil. 604, 624 (2018) [Per J.
Jardeleza, First Division], and AFP v. Amogod, 889 Phil. 846, 866 (2020) [Per J. Gaerlan,
First Division].

[14]Abalos v. Heirs of Vicenze Torio, 678 Phil. 691, 702(2011) [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division].

[15] Property Registration Decree.

[16]An Act Improving ,he Confirmation Process for Imperfect Land Titles, Amending for
the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 141, as Amended, Otherwise Known as "The Public
Land Act," and Presidential Decree No. 1529, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the
"Property Registration Decree", approved on July 16, 2021.

[17]Republic of the Philippines v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., 919 Phil. 622, 656-659 (2022)
[Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

[18] Id.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 13/14
3/4/25, 2:39 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/69765 14/14